Why do you hate DLC?

[Fluffball]

Not wanting to derail the thread but I have yet to see a game running, faster and with better graphics in a console than in my PC. And according to some hear say by the CEO of NVIDIA (apparently they had a hand on PS3): http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/nvidia-compares-ps4-specs-to-a-low-end-cpu-1138051

But in he vast majority of cases, unless you checked and actually sought to compare would you even notice? Unless you really want to be pedantic is there any real difference between 30FPS and 100FPS. The only noticeable difference is sometimes load times unless your seeking to load the game a lot.

How many times has game play actually been detrimentally effected by playing a console version of a game over a PC version? And we're not just talking snazzy graphics...eye candy does not make a good game which sadly many people and developers don't seem to understand anymore. Civ V being a prime example where less graphics and more game play would have made a much better game (at release specifically) overall. After maybe the first time how often have you really noticed that little shadow effect?
Then we can look at a huge difference which is the animations, how much time effort and processing goes into those? And then a lot of people turn them off...In the majority of cases does turning them off negatively effect the game play? Do people miss the animations? Would people have not bought the game if it just didn't have animations? How much better could the game have been if they used to time spent on the animations on other aspects of the game?

If you bought a PC for the same price as a console would it even run half or really most of the games a console does?
Which goes back to the real issue of if they can make the game run (even if not optimally) on a 10 year old piece of crap console why can't they make it run on a 10 year old piece of crap PC?

Even reading that link it will be interesting to see what will really be the difference game play wise from a PC and console.i.e. would the vast majority of people even notice the difference and if not then why can they do with outdated technology what they require up to date tech for a PC?

For a small minority of people it might be different if you really look for a difference...that pixel is a slightly different colour, i can see an extra tree in the background on the PC version, but does it really make a difference to the playability of the game?

 

[sumodaz]

My question is why do some companies 'get away' with it where as others don't? It seems Paradox can do no wrong, even though they sell unit graphics and music separately instead of including them in their expansions.. imagine having to buy the new unit graphics for BNW separately? IMO the Civ DLC has been fair and I have bought it and enjoyed it.

 

[PhilBowles]

My question is why do some companies 'get away' with it where as others don't? It seems Paradox can do no wrong, even though they sell unit graphics and music separately instead of including them in their expansions.. imagine having to buy the new unit graphics for BNW separately? IMO the Civ DLC has been fair and I have bought it and enjoyed it.

I think DLC is just an easy target for people who have issues with the base game - and quite possibly Paradox forums are as full of dissatisfied fans taking issue with their DLC as Civ V does here. As I described above, I don't think any of Civ V's "missing features" or other issues can be traced to the DLC model, and most of the genuine issues with the game and many changes that have improved gameplay have been added in free patches rather than DLC, but if you start with a sense that Civ V is missing features, and observe that Civ V uses small DLCs, you might correlate the two and assume that "because Civ V's missing X, Y and Z, they must be planning to use DLC to add it back", in defiance of all evidence that this has not happened.

 

[Aristos]

My question is why do some companies 'get away' with it where as others don't? It seems Paradox can do no wrong, even though they sell unit graphics and music separately instead of including them in their expansions.. imagine having to buy the new unit graphics for BNW separately? IMO the Civ DLC has been fair and I have bought it and enjoyed it.

Huge difference. Paradox games are not eye candy for little kiddies; they do not need to. They sell the eye candy for those few that want it, but the majority of the Paradoxes core fan base are not looking for the eye candy, they are looking for depth and content. Imagery DLCs fit perfectly in that case.

 

[pilot00]

@ Fluffball: Having both under my wing, I will tell you yes. I have noticed a vast gap in performance. And I am not speaking about frames. I am speaking the whole package (animation, lighting anisotropic filtering, post processing etc). You might not notice the details but if you have the screens side by side the difference is big. Take note though that this most of the time is game dependent or more precisely company dependent. Whether a company will create a 'lighter version' in one platform (usually consoles) and takes the time to port the game into PC and making the necessary adjustment to take full effect of the platforms capabilities. Given that most games are rush jobs nowdays, we can agree that most games are exceptions here.

That been said I will stand to your various arguments one by one. Take Note that I happen to be an IT professional, take that into account or not its up to you.

But in he vast majority of cases, unless you checked and actually sought to compare would you even notice? Unless you really want to be pedantic is there any real difference between 30FPS and 100FPS. The only noticeable difference is sometimes load times unless your seeking to load the game a lot.

I pretty much answered that in the start.

How many times has game play actually been detrimentally effected by playing a console version of a game over a PC version? And we're not just talking snazzy graphics...eye candy does not make a good game which sadly many people and developers don't seem to understand anymore. Civ V being a prime example where less graphics and more game play would have made a much better game (at release specifically) overall. After maybe the first time how often have you really noticed that little shadow effect?

Then we can look at a huge difference which is the animations, how much time effort and processing goes into those? And then a lot of people turn them off...In the majority of cases does turning them off negatively effect the game play? Do people miss the animations? Would people have not bought the game if it just didn't have animations? How much better could the game have been if they used to time spent on the animations on other aspects of the game?

Again I partly answered it in the first answer. But the whole eye candy point is irrelevant to our argument since we are discussing performance. However since the point has been risen, Ill point you to the crysis case: A five hour no brain series of games which has been hailed the best FPS ever. The only thing that Crisis had was graphics. So to a vast majority they are relevant. Hell the whole game was advertised as a PC and Benchmark and sold like crazy. So it must matter to a lot of people.
I am on the gameplay camp firmly rooted personally and I would very much have preferred a better game overall than getting a graphically perfect rounded @ss on the female chars. Though I am a huge fan of female @ss

If you bought a PC for the same price as a console would it even run half or really most of the games a console does?
Which goes back to the real issue of if they can make the game run (even if not optimally) on a 10 year old piece of crap console why can't they make it run on a 10 year old piece of crap PC?

Personally I can create you a budget PC that will run everything on par with a console of its time, a little bit more expensive. Not something huge though. The 'expensive upgrades' rant on PCs is been made by people who are buying PCs as is (through stores) and from those who want the latest Alienware PC to show off. It requires a little know how but believe me when I say it, it can be done. Right now I am typing from one such PC

Even reading that link it will be interesting to see what will really be the difference game play wise from a PC and console.i.e. would the vast majority of people even notice the difference and if not then why can they do with outdated technology what they require up to date tech for a PC?

It depends on the games you play. Try play an RTS in a console, or a fighting game in a PC without a joypad. Everything here is personal preference.

For a small minority of people it might be different if you really look for a difference...that pixel is a slightly different colour, i can see an extra tree in the background on the PC version, but does it really make a difference to the playability of the game?

This brings us back to the eye candy argument. See that please.

My question is why do some companies 'get away' with it where as others don't? It seems Paradox can do no wrong, even though they sell unit graphics and music separately instead of including them in their expansions.. imagine having to buy the new unit graphics for BNW separately? IMO the Civ DLC has been fair and I have bought it and enjoyed it.

Reputation/funboysm

I think DLC is just an easy target for people who have issues with the base game - and quite possibly Paradox forums are as full of dissatisfied fans taking issue with their DLC as Civ V does here. As I described above, I don't think any of Civ V's "missing features" or other issues can be traced to the DLC model, and most of the genuine issues with the game and many changes that have improved gameplay have been added in free patches rather than DLC, but if you start with a sense that Civ V is missing features, and observe that Civ V uses small DLCs, you might correlate the two and assume that "because Civ V's missing X, Y and Z, they must be planning to use DLC to add it back", in defiance of all evidence that this has not happened.

I would agree that this is not the case with CiV (pretty much must have DLCs). What CiVs DlCs offered are extras that the game is 100% complete without and at a good price. Could they have been included in the original packages? Yes OFC but after all Firaxis wants cash. I say its a fair deal. Nothing essential and in the appropriate price. If you want it go get it. If not the game is complete without it (unlike other games I can name....)

 

[Quintillus]

Part of it (the lesser part for me) is that DLC appears to be a cash-grab. Sure, all companies have to make money. But as has been mentioned, the fact that expansions often add game mechanics and DLC almost never does often tilts the value balance in favor of expansions. You do get some added fun and replay value from new content, but generally less than new mechanics (if the mechanics are done well).

Just as much of an issue is that DLC fragments the game. With Civ3 and Civ4, you pretty much either have the base game, the base + first expansion, or the whole thing (there's minor differences if you got the complete edition, but it's just that - minor). With a game with DLC, there's a lot more combinations. All of a sudden it's a question of whether you have the Spanish or Koreans or Polynesians or whoever the DLC of the day is. And that can matter for scenarios, multiplayer, or just discussing strategy. It also makes it more of a+ pain to have the whole game.

My question is why do some companies 'get away' with it where as others don't? It seems Paradox can do no wrong, even though they sell unit graphics and music separately instead of including them in their expansions.. imagine having to buy the new unit graphics for BNW separately? IMO the Civ DLC has been fair and I have bought it and enjoyed it.

I think we just are easy on Paradox because they're Swedish and Swedes are awesome.

But seriously, to me the difference is that graphics and music have no impact on gameplay. It doesn't affect me whatsoever if someone else has bought the Paradox graphic/music content or not. It can affect me if someone else has the Civ5 civs DLC and I don't - for example, some GOTMs here require that DLC (and others don't).

I have heard a bit of grumbling about Paradox's day 1 preorder bonuses and DLC for EU4, however. So I don't think they're immune, they just haven't done anything that annoying previously.

 

[MarkC1]

The thing I dislike the most about DLC for Civilization V is the scenarios.

Of the four or so DLC packs that came with my copy of Civilization V, there was only one scenario that was worth playing more than five times.

so true so true... only bought Civ 5 gold upgrade cause it was 5 bucks on steam. Sure enough the new "Scenarios" are just custom maps and a bunch of settlers.

The thing is i'd gladly pay decent money to have a functioning historical scenario